UBIE – Unconditional Basic Income Europehttps://www.ubie.org
We are an internation activist network advocating for the implementation of Basic Income in Europe and its recognition as a Universal Human Right.Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:15:59 +0000en-GBhourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4Basic income: Creator of Entrepreneurshttps://www.ubie.org/peter-biczok-basic-income-creator-of-entrepreneurs/
https://www.ubie.org/peter-biczok-basic-income-creator-of-entrepreneurs/#respondWed, 14 Mar 2018 20:40:06 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2199Does technological advancement make Unconditional Basic Income inevitable? Perhaps not. But we need it to compensate for the speed of the social change this technology brings us.

]]>Does technological advancement make Unconditional Basic Income inevitable? Perhaps not. But certainly to compensate for the speed of the social change that this technology brings us. It means that mass unemployment and social disruption does not have to repeat in an even bigger fold, but every unemployed person can train themselves and essentially become an entrepreneur immediately.

By Peter Biczok

As an economist and social scientist, I have been very excited about the idea of universal basic income and the movement that has been developing in Europe in its support. However, as an economist and social scientist, I have also been looking for counterarguments that would question my enthusiasm and enrich my objective opinion.

If you are new to this space, universal basic income (UBI) is the idea that a modern State shall distribute a universal basic income to every citizen to reduce the welfare gap that has developed in recent decades. Those arguing for UBI remind us first of the benefit of having all the bureaucracy around social security systems abolished and a simple fee being distributed to everyone in its place, removing the administrative burden. Secondly, they say recent acceleration in technological development suggests that the number of jobs will be significantly reduced in the future, or some even suggest today. Thirdly, such reform would liberate employees from doing demeaning jobs so that employers would need to provide satisfactory jobs or satisfactory pay for positions that are less in demand.

On the other hand, there have been various arguments that a basic income would reduce the demand for jobs and so society would enter a declining productivity phase. In a recent article, Professor Rothstein from the Blavatnik School of Government referred to a basic income of £800 as being too economically disruptive to our societies. Mr Rothstein suggests that the proposed amount would be too high for a government to pay, but too low for individuals to live on.

Consequently, Mr Rothstein indicates that people might ‘increase their standard of living with various kinds of “irregular” income (drug trafficking, prostitution, etc.)’. I can only wonder how the millions of workers who participate in the so-called gig economy, working for Uber, Deliveroo, Upwork or any other freelancer in the world, might feel about an economics professor calling them drug traffickers and prostitutes. According to a recent report, over 34% of the US labour force participate in such activities (excluding drug trafficking and prostitution).

Indeed, as Mr Rothstein correctly notes, £800 is barely enough to survive in some parts of the UK, and I agree the relative value should reflect similar levels in each country. At a recent Q&A session, I proposed an average €500 to Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, for ease of calculation. Sadly, his response revealed that top EU management has not had the chance to familiarise itself with the meaning of ‘universality’ in the term universal basic income. Mr Juncker also seemed to believe that basic income would provide equal pay to workers and non-workers resulting in social injustice, but the main concern seemed to be it’s costs. (At monthly €500 for 500 m residents, the annual costs would come to €3,000bln. For comparison the current EU budget spends €60 bn p.a. on the Common Agricultural Policy supporting the 10 million farming jobs in the EU. That is exactly €500 per month per person resulting indeed in social injustice when supporting jobs in agriculture but not elsewhere.)

However, €500 is not enough in most EU countries to live off, and that is what most UBI advocates promote. The value should not accommodate a comfortable middle class life but instead be enough to cover the first stage of Maslow’s pyramid (Maslow 1943: Hierarchy of Needs). The aim is not to provide welfare for all, but to remove the fear of not being able to survive for all. An average of €500 should be enough to provide basic shelter and food, and to survive worst-case scenarios. While Mr Rothstein is afraid that ‘irregular’ income might create a negative political legitimacy for UBI (due to the increase he envisages in drug use and prostitution), most economists suggests that ‘irregular’ jobs are the key for future prosperity.

Another counter argument Mr Rothstein and many others voice, is against the claim that technological advancement reduces the need for human labour. Indeed, current patterns suggest that artificial intelligence and robotics are overtaking human efficiency, but the critics are also right in pointing out that the first industrial revolution that removed millions of jobs, also created new ones. What the critics fail to recognise, and therefore are missing as a profound evolutionary learning opportunity, is how to overcome the poverty, social disruption and two world wars that industrial revolution brought us. The current digital revolution has all the hallmarks of the industrial one, but takes place multiple folds faster and to broader social segments. If we failed to prepare the public with proper education for the jobs of the 19th century, most people would readily see that the centrally planned education system of 2018 will not prepare current or future unemployed masses for the jobs of 2050! A monthly UBI could allow individuals to prepare for the jobs that are better suited to their own skills.

I would go as far as to claim that UBI is not inevitable to compensate for technological advancement but to compensate for the speed of the social change that it brings us. UBI means that the mass unemployment and social disruption that Europeans experienced during and after the first industrial revolution does not have to repeat in an even bigger fold, but every unemployed person can train themselves and essentially become an entrepreneur immediately. In this sense, UBI may achieve exactly what Mr Rothstein was arguing for: creation of new jobs.

Originally raised in Budapest, Peter Biczók studied economics and finance in Austria. After working in finance IT in the City of London he graduated in transport and urban planning from University College London. He started his transport-urbanist career in Brussels advocating sustainable transport policy with Transport&Environment, an NGO. He later relocated to Amsterdam in order to work on smart mobility solutions. Passionate about cycling as an enabler for urban renewal and improved social equity, he consults Eastern and Southern European cities on implementing cycling as urban transport.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/peter-biczok-basic-income-creator-of-entrepreneurs/feed/0Nothing Changes for the Better by Focusing on the Half-Empty Glasshttps://www.ubie.org/loriana-luccioni-nothing-changes-for-the-better-by-focusing-on-the-half-empty-glass/
https://www.ubie.org/loriana-luccioni-nothing-changes-for-the-better-by-focusing-on-the-half-empty-glass/#respondMon, 19 Feb 2018 20:20:27 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2191As any idea gaining momentum, universal basic income attracts supporters as well as critics. As it attracts broad support from the whole political spectrum, differences in ideological assumptions come to the fore at the stage of policy design.

]]>As any idea gaining momentum, universal basic income (UBI) attracts supporters as well as critics. What might be considered a strength of UBI, is its capacity to attract broad support from the whole political spectrum; however, as one might imagine, differences in ideological assumptions come to the fore at the stage of policy design.

By Loriana Luccioni

The projected outcomes from different UBI conceptualisations provide fertile ground for critique based on misinterpretation and confusion. This article has been written in response to an opinion piece published by Bo Rothstein on Social Europe; the objective being to question some of his conclusions, while hopefully delivering some clarity.

The article also draws attention to some of the data recently released by the European Social Survey (ESS), an academic cross-national survey that measures attitudes through questionnaires from 2001 and face-to-face interviews completed every 2 years since 2002. As much more analysis is needed to interpret the vast amount of resources provided by this significant study, this article provides only an overview, rather than a detailed, referenced scholarly interpretation. This year, the report compares data collected from 18 countries in round 4 in 2008 and in round 8 in 2016. Main findings, resulting from only a preliminary analysis show, among other interesting data, that support for UBI appears slightly stronger than opposition in 10 out of the 18 countries sampled.

Rothstein’s article, ‘UBI – a bad idea for the welfare state’, begins with an honest description of the author’s opinion of UBI: one of those ‘several ideas’ of the political left ‘not particularly well thought out’, such as ‘[a] centrally planned economy, the nationalization of all the means of production, forced collectivization of agriculture’ – Communism in other words – and, for reasons not clearly specified, ‘the … Swedish wage earner fund’.

The argument presented to explain these ‘sometimes monstrous failures’ (while striving for increased social justice) is ‘a reluctance to take the implementation process into account and think through how the policies will actually work when they meet reality, and with what consequences’.

In practice, the overarching critique levelled at Left-leaning ideas and policies is that they are idealist, and anchored in the realm of general principles. They are seen to be part of the philosophical world of ideas – detached from reality and the multiple hurdles that have to be factored in at the implementation phase.

This is a disheartening realisation. It is disheartening to come across arguments that criticise human desire for inclusive progress as idealist and optimistic, while portraying reality through the lenses of deep pessimism, and naming it objective.

Talking about the failure of Communism in an article criticising UBI is misleading in a number of ways.

Firstly, UBI is not a ‘traditional Left’ idea, and this point might be clarified from an historical recount of the development of the idea, by, for instance, Thomas Paine, who precedes our present conceptualisation of political Left or Right (constantly evolving). Even if one wants to abide by the Left/Right dichotomy for wider ideological groupings, it is interesting to discover that political, academic and professional exponents from the Right, such as Lady Rhys-Williams, Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, have also supported prototypes of policies similar to UBI.

In fact, to the surprise of Rothstein, even some high profile IT entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley support the idea; these are companies that are benefiting from the capacity provided by technological progress to speed up the accumulation of wealth, through ‘digital capital’, which in theory is abundant and free, as explained by authors like Thomas Piketty. Businesses that find amazing tax loopholes to avoid paying the rightful amount in taxes are defined as ‘leftist’ in Rothstein’s presentation of this ‘broad, unrefined group’. Recent data from the ESS confirms that in Christian Democratic welfare states, in Eastern Europe and Israel, people from the Centre are more likely to support UBI than people from the Left.

Secondly, perhaps it is those who are more comfortably off who can conclude from the altar of the objective, rational and empirical point of view that good intentions cannot be translated into effective policies because idealists are unable to predict implementation nightmares. Simplistic at best, this kind of critique omits to mention (hopefully unintentionally) the multiple, disastrous, uncalculated consequences that the current capitalist system of production, built upon neoliberal prescription, has created.

A number of problems ‘not taken into account’ according to Rothstein, are mentioned in order to justify the unfeasibility of a UBI. Firstly, fiscal un-sustainability is mentioned. It is argued that the expense of UBI would ‘jeopardize the state’s ability to maintain quality in public services such as healthcare, education and care of the elderly’. The reasoning unfolds by arguing that underfunded services will become poor services, therefore wealthier citizens will prefer to buy them in the private market, damaging legitimacy because questions such as ‘why pay twice’ will arise.

In refuting this argument, it must be mentioned that, due to the broad support UBI has been able to attract, various models of it have emerged; each model varies according to the ideology on which it is constructed. As a consequence, some exponents have proposed hyper-libertarian models whereby the ‘public’ simply disappears and each individual is given the full freedom to choose the best service (health, education, care included) from a finally fully unbridled, competitive market. Others, such as Malcolm Torry in the UK and Scott Santens in the USA, have proposed fiscally neutral, and strictly fiscally neutral models. These models do not affect the funding structure of (already under-funded) public services. It is therefore misleading to think that current proposals will not carefully study how the introduction of UBI will interact with other public policies.

In addition, the argument that poor services will automatically lead to wealthier people buying them privately, is embedded in a conception of the human being as pure economic actor whose behaviour is solely and simply regulated by rational choice. In fact, economics itself, as a discipline, often finds ‘irrational’ behaviour to be a manifest human feature.

Universality strengthens the meaning of ‘public’ in public policies, precisely because it mirrors the societal pooling of resources and efforts to the benefit of all, unconditionally – a word of increasingly important meaning in an insecure and precarious present. The broad support of universal policies such as the UK National Health Service is a strong case in point. Interestingly, as reported by the ESS, attitudes towards social inequality have shifted from 2008 to 2016 in the 18 countries sampled, towards a decreased acceptance of large differences in standards of living. It seems that a ‘universal crisis’ may have reignited a sense of shared fate and as such, less acceptance of inequality.

Universal basic income may provide impetus in the struggle to build a more equal society, where wealth and resources are truly redistributed. None the less, it is not a silver-bullet solution and must be accompanied by other reforms, particularly in tax/benefit systems.

The second problem presented by Rothstein is legitimacy. It is argued that due to the ‘basic’ nature of UBI, people will soon realise that it will not be enough to cover their ‘needs’ (in the author’s words – perhaps more accurately described as ‘wants’ in our consumption-driven society). He concludes that these people will seek fulfilment of their ‘needs’ by increasing ‘their standard of living with various kinds of “irregular” income (drug trafficking, prostitution, etc.)’. Rothstein suggests that even if only a minority pursue this behaviour, it might attract widespread media reporting and negative publicity, therefore damaging UBI legitimacy.

The best answer to this critique is in the words that Guy Standing adopts in his book The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class to describe our current punitive, conditional welfare system based on a Victorian sense of deservingness: ‘to hound a tiny minority for their “laziness” is a sign of our weakness, not our merit’. We live in a bizarre value and reward system, whereby a minority of vulnerable people, that often fall into poverty for reasons well beyond their will and intention, are demonised, while massive ‘lawful’ tax evasions as exposed in the Panama and Paradise papers cause at best only a couple of morally laden public statements (unless you are in Iceland).

The unconditional nature of UBI stands precisely to encourage more trustworthy relationships among human beings. It is not naïve; frauds will always exist, but their number decreases in societies that are more equal, societies where understanding and solidarity form their bedrock, not suspicion and selfishness. As beautifully argued by RSA (2015): ‘Behavioural science tells us that reciprocity is important but reciprocal relationships are more likely where there is an initial act of generosity.’

The third identified problem concerns the need for work. By arguing that there is an increased need for labour in many areas of care, as a result of Europe’s ageing population, the author creates a self-contradiction by stating that ‘[w]ith an unconditional universal basic income, people will ask why they should pay wages to people who can work but choose not to work when there is a need for many more “hands” in such areas’. The missed, essential point of this critique, is that UBI is conceptualised precisely in order to free people from demeaning tasks, from unpleasant jobs that deliver no psychological or societal benefits. UBI promotes real freedom to choose; it returns the precious time lost in activities designed to keep people barely surviving within our current system, and encourages the multiple human activities that our current time- and attention-deprived reality obstructs, such as caring – caring for the elderly, the sick, the young and the disabled, caring for the environment, and for our communities – all currently described as ‘burdens’. The notion that in an increasingly automated and roboticised world, care and emotional work will be the most sought after activities is well recognised. It is exactly this shift that UBI wants to support.

The fourth problem mentioned, is the key one: unconditionality. The author argues that the main body of the Welfare State was built on reciprocity, not altruism. Therefore, by breaking with this principle, the broad-based social solidarity that built the Welfare State will be dismantled.

The only response adequate to this final critique is that UBI supporters do perceive the big fallacies of our current welfare system. Again, different ideologies are leading to different models but none of them denies the inefficient and ineffective design of an historical welfare system no longer fit for purpose.

Reciprocity, as well as meritocracy are starting to be questioned by the population sampled by the ESS: in fact ‘large differences in income to reward talents and efforts’ are becoming less accepted even in traditionally liberal countries such as the UK. Of the people sampled, there was a decrease of almost 10% of people agreeing with this statement from 2008 to 2016.

With country-specific variables taken into account, this is the best time to remind ourselves that the history of welfare systems is rooted in charity, and mirrors a culture embedded in paternalistic assumptions about human relationships. As societies are changing at an increasingly fast pace, we need to admit that our tired institutions need to be redesigned to fit new purposes and fulfil re-discovered needs.

The core of the critique of UBI rests on the assumption that some cultural constructs are unchangeable. It is in this ‘unchange-ability’ that a deeper pessimism, characteristic of contemporary times, is rooted. Culture shapes individual psychology, self-perception and worth, and identity, and this in turn shapes behaviour in relation to the self and others. As social, relational and co-dependent individuals, our values and beliefs become expressed in the institutions we build. It is precisely by changing values that cultural shift becomes possible.

Culture is not something that can easily be managed and, as a consequence, critics who define themselves as ‘realists’ cannot and should not be easily dismissed. However, cultural change can be encouraged, and social policies such as UBI, which take on the duty of regulating the worst selfish instincts nurtured by the competitive and individualist culture we live in, are the best place to start the re-imagining of human societies with different priorities, derived from different values.

Loriana Luccioni is a PhD student at the University of Queensland. After completing degrees in Psychology and Sociology, Loriana has graduated with a Master of Science in European and Comparative Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, with her dissertation winning the Titmuss Prize. Following a brief collaboration as independent postgraduate researcher with the Policy Innovation Hub at Griffith University, she is now investigating the Cultural and Political feasibility for the introduction of a UBI in Australia.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/loriana-luccioni-nothing-changes-for-the-better-by-focusing-on-the-half-empty-glass/feed/0Basic Income: Neither Left nor Right? Join us in Göteborg, 23-25 March 2018!https://www.ubie.org/gothenburg-meeting-23-25-march-2018/
https://www.ubie.org/gothenburg-meeting-23-25-march-2018/#respondSun, 04 Feb 2018 16:30:12 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2119Who are, who should be our allies in the struggle for basic income? The weekend in Göteborg, Sweden 23-25 March 2018 will include a public meeting, seminars, workshops and our annual General Assembly.

]]>Is Basic Income a political project more of the left or of the right? Is it ‘the capitalist road to communism’ or a libertarian conspiracy from Silicon Valley? Or are these categories pointless when discussing a future with basic income? Who are, who should be our allies in the struggle for basic income? This will be the overarching theme of the next network meeting of Unconditional Basic Income Europe. The weekend in Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden 23-25 March 2018 will include a public meeting, seminars, workshops and our annual General Assembly. Come and join us!

Registration

]]>https://www.ubie.org/gothenburg-meeting-23-25-march-2018/feed/0Lisbon UBIE Create-athon – September 2017https://www.ubie.org/lisbon-ubie-create-athon-september-2017/
https://www.ubie.org/lisbon-ubie-create-athon-september-2017/#commentsFri, 22 Dec 2017 12:25:58 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2074In connection with the 2017 BIEN Congress, Unconditional Basic Income Europe held a General Assembly on 24 September in Lisbon. Beyond discussing organisational issues like on the budget, the relationship to BIEN and the question if we want to introduce membership fees, we reserved plenty of time to look at our ongoing projects in the […]

]]>In connection with the 2017 BIEN Congress, Unconditional Basic Income Europe held a General Assembly on 24 September in Lisbon. Beyond discussing organisational issues like on the budget, the relationship to BIEN and the question if we want to introduce membership fees, we reserved plenty of time to look at our ongoing projects in the form of a Create-a-thon, which has already been used successfully at our Ljubljana meeting. Here you can read an overview of what has been discussed and achieved at the various workshops.

Eurodividend Tool

In this meeting, a macroeconomic tool calculating the inter-countries redistributive impact of an Eurodividend has been presented by Jean Mansuy. The tool, based on academics’ work, is still currently under development, and is currently developed on a Microsoft Excel worksheet. It has been agreed that having a simplified web interface of this tool on the UBIE website could be of great use and could enable the interested public to play with the number in order to create their own Eurodividend. One of the main questions of this workshop was to think about the possible usage of such a tool and, according to the answers, what could be the next steps of development.

Basic Income for European children

This workshop was organized on the topic of a possible EU Child Benefit. There is a common agreement that this subject could be a good entry point for European lobbying, especially before the European elections of 2019. It could also enable us to get new partnerships with other organizations. Strategically, the focus on children is interesting as ending child poverty should be a moral priority. Children are the future of Europe, we should thus invest in them. It is also a strong tool for a better social cohesion among EU countries, enabling to reduce inequalities and enhance a better wealth redistribution.

New European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

Klaus Sambor from attac Austria presented the text for the proposed new ECI on unconditional basic income with the title „START UBI“. The subject matter and the objectives were discussed in detail. The campaign schedule, developed at a UBIE regional meeting of activists from Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Germany on 21/09/17 in Vienna was also presented. Generally, it was suggested that the final text and the campaign plan should be available already in November 2017 and the UBIE decision on campaign should happen already before the end of 2017, in order to give more time for the preparation of the start.

The topic of correlation between „New ECI on UBI“ and „Eurodividend“ was not discussed in our workshop, because it had been already planned a separate workshop for „Eurodividend“ for Lisbon. The result of the Eurodividend workshop will probably lead to a revised version of the ECI text.

Fundraising

During the workshop about fundraising a letter was finished that could be used as a template to contact different groups or private people they we think have an interest in supporting us.

Communication Strategy

We had a brainstorming session to collect input for developing an overall communication strategy of UBIE. We discussed our goals and core messages, reviewed our Maastricht strategy paper, thought about specifying target audiences, and looked at preferential communication formats and channels. Based on the outcome, Dániel will compile a draft communication strategy that will be the base for furhter discussion within the network.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/lisbon-ubie-create-athon-september-2017/feed/1Survey: Majority in Germany thinks introducing a Basic Income is a sensible ideahttps://www.ubie.org/survey-majority-germany-thinks-introducing-basic-income-sensible-idea/
https://www.ubie.org/survey-majority-germany-thinks-introducing-basic-income-sensible-idea/#respondMon, 18 Dec 2017 11:12:17 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2082A representative survey found that 58% of Germans think that the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income is a sensible idea – with some reservations, depending on how the concept is presented.

]]>A representative survey found that 58% of Germans think that the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income is a sensible idea – with some reservations, depending on how the concept is presented. On average, people thought that a Basic Income of €1,137 a month was appropriate. With a Basic Income of €1,000 a month, 1 in 10 people currently working would choose not to work anymore.

The market research institute Splendid Research conducted a representative online survey of 1,024 people between the ages of 18 and 69 on the topic of an Unconditional Basic Income. Amongst other things, the survey aimed to find out how well known the concept is, what people in Germany think about the introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income, what level they think is appropriate and whether they would carry on working with a Basic Income.

Two thirds of people in Germany were familiar with the term Unconditional Basic Income. After having read a definition, on average a majority of 58% of German citizens would be in favour of introducing a Basic Income. However, the survey showed how much influence context has in forming political opinion: if the definition mainly described benefits of the idea, 64% of German citizens were in favour, if however the definition mainly described negative aspects then only 46% were in favour.

The three different definitions used were the following:

Where negative aspects predominate: “With an Unconditional Basic Income, every citizen receives a fixed amount of money from the state. This would replace various government benefits such as unemployment benefit, child benefit and housing benefit. Although there are some advantages, there are mostly drawbacks: some people would no longer work and companies will struggle to find workers for demanding careers.”

Where positive aspects predominate: “With an Unconditional Basic Income, every citizen receives a fixed amount of money from the state. This would replace various government benefits such as unemployment benefit, child benefit and housing benefit. Although there are some drawbacks, there are mostly advantages: lots of bureaucracy would disappear which would cover a large proportion of the cost. At the same time unemployed people are better treated and are much more motivated to find a job that they will enjoy.”

Where positive aspects predominate with case study provided from Finland: “A pilot study for an Unconditional Basic Income was started at the beginning of 2017. Unemployed people chosen at random, instead of receiving various benefits simply receive a monthly payment which they can choose to spend as they wish. The Unconditional Basic Income is paid even if the unemployed person isn’t actively looking for a job. If the person starts working they can earn an additional income without any tax being deducted from the Unconditional Basic Income. The results have been surprisingly positive. The Basic Income doesn’t make the people lazy or unambitious. On the contrary. The participants report that they have more desire to find a job and more time to pursue business ideas. Additionally, many participants have contacted the leader of the project to tell her that they are much less stressed than they used to be.”

The level of Basic Income considered appropriate by German citizens was on average €1,137 a month (this is almost exactly the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for Germany calculated by a number of German and European institutions). Here the respondents sense of social justice played a major role. People who thought that the world was generally socially just suggested a level of €1,093, whereas those who thought the world was less socially just thought €1,239 was appropriate.

The introduction of an Unconditional Basic Income would have drastic effects on the labour market. Depending on the level of Basic Income up to 38% of people working in Germany would change their career or their employer, reduce the number of hours worked or even choose not to work at all. Of those currently working who have a professional qualification, one quarter would consider giving up their career completely. Among academics however, only one fifth would consider not working at all. “This means that the introduction of a Basic Income could potentially exacerbate the current skills shortage of some professions in Germany.” according to study leader Nadine Corleis of Spelndid Research.

In general Germans think more highly of themselves than their fellow citizens: whereas nine percent of respondents said they themselves would not work anymore if they had a Basic Income of €1,000 a month, they thought on average 28% of others would choose not to work. Part time work and the gender pay gap also affect views on an Unconditional Basic Income, on average women would choose not to work with a Basic Income of €1,477, whereas men would need a Basic Income of €1,830 before they gave up work.

An Unconditional Basic Income could have a positive effect on community engagement in Germany. Nearly a third of German citizens, if they had support from the state, would consider moving to regions with lower rent prices and lower costs of living and work there voluntarily or start a business. “This could lead to growth in regions which in recent years have seen populations decline” Corleis goes on to explain.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/survey-majority-germany-thinks-introducing-basic-income-sensible-idea/feed/0How can Basic Income activism and research support each other?https://www.ubie.org/how-can-basic-income-activism-and-research-support-each-other/
https://www.ubie.org/how-can-basic-income-activism-and-research-support-each-other/#respondSun, 17 Dec 2017 17:51:54 +0000https://www.ubie.org/?p=2072This year’s BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network) Congress in Lisbon (25-27 September), saw UBIE (Unconditional Basic Income Europe) sponsor a workshop entitled “How can Basic Income activism and research support each other?”

]]>This year’s BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network) Congress in Lisbon (25-27 September), saw UBIE (Unconditional Basic Income Europe) sponsor a workshop entitled “How can Basic Income activism and research support each other?”

While the two forces compliment each other, they do not always work in cooperation. Academics, for example, have precious knowledge from their research, however, activists understand the public reaction, being “on the ground”, while networking with other organisations, politicians and influencers of the debate.

With this in mind the workshop was split into two workshops, Pilots and General. The Pilots’ group, which included members of the Basic Income Canada Network (BICN) and other Canadian activists, looked specifically at the UBI pilot scheme currently underway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The provincial government announced consultations to hammer out the details of a CA$25 million (€16.5 million) pilot project in October 2016 and the scheme launched this year, following Conservative political strategist and long-time advocate Hugh Segal’s report.
BICN and UBI activists were surprised when the Ontario government originally announced its intention to launch a UBI trial as there had not been wide-spread political discussion or demand for such a move.

A perceived lack of consultation meant BICN and Canadian activists felt they had had little say in how the pilot scheme was designed, although the Ontario government pledged it would make ‘no participant worse off’ there were many details that needed amending when people volunteered to take part.

The scheme also attracted criticism from an influential anti-poverty group Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). The group also used the scheme to attack the idea of UBI in general. During the Pilot group’s discussion regarding this attack it was agreed that pro-UBI groups shouldn’t be afraid to make their own critique of pilots and how they often diverge from the kind of UBI promoted by activists. Most UBI activists promote schemes which would be paid on top of services or benefits for special needs and not as a replacement for them (cf. BIEN’s statement on this).

BICN’s statement “The Basic Income we want” is a response to OCAP’s attack. However, it was also agreed that another response would be to gather support from other civil society groups for the kind of basic income activists would like to see.

When the French region of Aquitaine’s UBI pilot was under discussion, for example, UBI activists from MFRB (Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base) were involved in its design, as well as opponents of UBI. This meant that the Aquitaine proposal did not attract the kind of skepticism from other anti-poverty groups in the way Ottawa’s did.

Besides this the discussion raised research needs activists have, including alternative forms of financing UBI, since most of the studies are done as ‘revenue neutral’ (income tax based) and often suggest levels which are too low to live on. Activists also need better information on political structures / personnel they are trying to influence and how best to influence them, and potential allies.

The other group looked at more general questions of cooperation including: How can activists induce/ generate more studies? How can activists better promote scientific results? How can researchers help activists with the questions they have? How can activists and researchers foster their exchange? How can activists and researchers build/ deepen their network?

All in all this was an invigorating workshop which raised several issues with research which the plenary on pilots and other workshops did not cover.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/how-can-basic-income-activism-and-research-support-each-other/feed/0Strengthening cooperation: UBIE at the 2017 BIEN Congress in Lisbonhttps://www.ubie.org/strengthening-cooperation-ubie-at-the-2017-bien-congress-in-lisbon/
https://www.ubie.org/strengthening-cooperation-ubie-at-the-2017-bien-congress-in-lisbon/#respondMon, 02 Oct 2017 06:37:53 +0000https://ubie.org/?p=2056The 17th BIEN Congress in Lisbon was the first to be linked to a meeting of Unconditional Basic Income Europe: A great opportunity for both organisations to learn from each other.

]]>The 17th BIEN Congress in Lisbon (25th-27th September 2017) was the first to be connected to a General Assembly of Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE), which took place also in Lisbon. Both events presented a great opportunity for members of both organisations to get to known to and learn from each other. UBIE had a stand at the Congress and also organised a workshop on cooperation between researchers and campaigners. At the BIEN Affiliates’ Plenary, our work and achievements were presented by Dániel Fehér, Chair of UBIE.

Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Friends,

It is an honour to address this distinguished audience on behalf of the board and the members of UBIE. My name is Dániel Fehér, and since March I am the Chair of this organisation.

I stand here today to stress the special significance of a good, intensive and trustful cooperation between UBIE and BIEN. As many of you might know, UBIE was born out of the European Citizens’ Initiative that collected 300,000 signatures across the EU in support of basic income. This campaign was initiated mainly by individuals and organisations from the BIEN nexus.

All of those who helped to start UBIE were enthusiastic supporters of the idea but not many of them were seasoned campaigners. Therefore the organisation is still trying to figure out what it means exactly to be a political interest group and how to do it best. All this without the financial and human resources of established advocacy organisations.

But we are on a good way, making steady progress. We have now over 300 members in over 25 European countries (including countries outside of the EU). Our newsletter reaches 4,000 subscribers and we have active communication on Facebook, Twitter and now also on Instagram. We just relaunched our website two weeks ago and have a microdonation platform on OpenCollective. Beyond this, we are undertaking strong efforts to find out more about the interest and motivation of our members as well as to establish permanent communication channels to the movements in all the countries we cover.

The focus of our work is determined by our strategy we adopted two years ago in Maribor. In that, we’ve set out 4 major goals:

Levy support in the EU institutions.

Make UBI a hot topic in the mainstream world.

Assert the feasibility of UBI proposals.

Activate and grow UBIE while making it appealing, fun and friendly.

In order to make these objectives more practical, we broke them down into particular projects and activities. The main projects we’re working on are:

Create an interactive exhibition where visitors can imagine how their life could be free of existential worries;

Planning a campaign for the 2019 European Elections, including possibly a new ECI;

Building alliences with politicians, organisations and institutions on European level.

The board that has been elected in March has put together an ambitious work programme to strengthen the structures and lobbying power of UBIE. In the coming months we plan to focus on the following six main challenges:

Clarify the UBIE brand: Who are we, what are we doing, what are we not doing?

UBIE members have the opportunity to meet in person 3-4 times a year. This year we started experimenting with formats that allow for a stronger focus on advancing with our projects and activities directed on implementing the work plan. We had good experience with using the Open Space methodology for our Summer Create-athon in Ljubljana and at our meeting last Sunday here in Lisbon. Next year, we hope to be able to organise a big summer academy with sufficient time for both working sessions and informal activities.

I would like to finish with a view words on successes of the basic income movement in Europe. There are some big achievements which are the joint successes of lots of actors and a few smaller successes UBIE can claim ownership.

We were invited to a hearing at the Council of Europe to give I input to a report on the future of the welfare state. The report is due to be voted soon and is likely to contain a strong focus on UBI.

We lobbied Members of the European Parliament to add a reference to basic income in a recent report on Robotics – we lost the final vote only on a small margin but made great contacts during these efforts.

We are preparing joint events with Members of the European Parliament who support us.

We got the European Green Party to set up a Working Group on UBI.

We organised an expert workshop on basic income ideas in Ljubljana with the European Liberal Forum, the results of which will be communicated to the liberal group in the EP.

As you can see, this is an exciting time to be a basic income activist. My personal expectation is that the topic of this BIEN Congress “implementing basic income” is on the brink of a major breakthrough, it could become political reality faster as we may think. But it will not happen by itself. And to make sure that it happens in a way we would like to see it happen, we need to be present in the political debates and steer them in the right direction.

And that brings us back to the need of cooperation between researchers of basic income and political activists. We just had an excellent workshop on this subject. If we want to see basic income implemented, we need both qualified academic discussions and professional political advocacy. To help both, it is highly important to create a smooth and fruitful cooperation between UBIE and BIEN and we are here to make sure this happens.

For UBIE, the BIEN framework is also an excellent opportunity to exchange campaigning experience with groups outside of Europe – we will continue doing that in a further session this afternoon – and of course beyond this Congress in cooperation with the BIEN Outreach Team. And we are happy that the next BIEN Congress in Finland will be another event where members of BIEN and UBIE can meet and continue to exchange.

]]>https://www.ubie.org/junte-se-a-nos-em-lisboa/feed/0Join us in Lisbon on 24 September!https://www.ubie.org/join-us-in-lisbon-on-24-september/
https://www.ubie.org/join-us-in-lisbon-on-24-september/#respondSun, 03 Sep 2017 16:45:54 +0000http://ubie.minuskel.de/?p=1984The next meeting of Unconditional Basic Income Europe will be held in Lisbon, Portugal on Sunday, 24th September 2017, one day before the start of the 17th BIEN Congress.

]]>The next meeting of Unconditional Basic Income Europe will be held in Lisbon, Portugal on Sunday, 24th September 2017, one day before the start of the 17th BIEN Congress.

This is the first time we will have an UBIE meeting at the same place and time as a BIEN Congress and we have a great chance to get to know each other better. UBIE therefore kindly invites participants of the Congress and representatives from BIEN to attend our meeting, as well.

UBIE members are all cordially invited to attend the BIEN Congress. Attendance is free for those who cannot afford the registration fee. Fees apply in any case for those who need a certificate of attendance or are make a presentation. Registration is mandatory and can be done on the Congress website.

UBIE will have a workshop at the Congress on Wednesday, 27th Sept 9.00 – 11.00.

Saturday, 23th September: Meetup (Basic Income on the Blockchain)

18.00 – 19.30: For all those who arrive on Saturday afternoon or earlier, we are organising a social get-together. Andy Milenius, programmer in the team of Circles, will give us an insight into their project of developing a blockchain-based cryptocurrency system for basic income.

The UBIE meeting is open to all members and interested guests. However, we kindly ask you to register with the form below if you plan to attend. Only persons who have signed up as members before 24th June 2017 are entitled to vote in the General Assembly.

Registration Form

* Erforderlich

Personal information

Name
*

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Email
*

Geben Sie eine gültige E-Mail-Adresse ein.

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Phone number

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Country
*

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Organisation

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Are you member of UBIE?
*

Yes

No

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Programme options

It would help us to know which parts of the weekend you will be attending

What parts of the meeting will you attend?
*

Saturday evening - UBI meetup and social get-together

Sunday morning - UBIE General Assembly

Sunday afternoon to evening – UBIE projects & activities workshops

BIEN Congress (separate registration necessary!)

Dieses Feld muss ausgefüllt werden.

Accommodation

Do you need assistance with finding free/inexpensive accommodations? Please let us know for which night. Do you know people who can offer a room or a couch? Please send an email to contact@ubie.org

]]>https://www.ubie.org/join-us-in-lisbon-on-24-september/feed/0Basic income for Europe – UBIE Summer workshop in Ljubljanahttps://www.ubie.org/basic-income-for-europe/
https://www.ubie.org/basic-income-for-europe/#respondSat, 05 Aug 2017 21:16:35 +0000https://ubie.org/?p=2033The charming city of Ljubljana hosted an inspiring meeting of European basic income experts and activists end of July.

]]>The charming city of Ljubljana hosted an inspiring meeting of European basic income experts and activists end of July.

On Friday, 21 July UBIE co-organised an expert workshop with the title “Basic Income for Europe”, together with the NOVUM Institute and the European Liberal Forum. They discussed in-depth on partial basic income proposals for the European level with a focus on concrete legal changes, possible economic and social outcomes. This was rounded up by a review of ongoing and planned pilot projects from various European countries.

On Saturday and Sunday, 22-23 July, about 25 members of Unconditional Basic Income Europe came together for a creative working weekend in the highly inspiring co-working space “Poligon”. The aim of the meeting was to advance on joint projects, prepare campaigns and work on organisational development. Topics included Social Media, applying the Theory of Change concept for UBIE campaigns, plans for a Eurodividend conference, a concept for a new European Citizens Initiative or a campaign idea on a European Child Benefit.